Slashdot Mirror
Companies Join Together to Maintain Open Internet
idontneedanickname writes "SiliconValley.com is carrying an article from The Mercury News about the lobbying efforts of companies such as Amazon.com, Microsoft and Walt Disney (yes, you read that right) to stop the FCC from "fundamentally altering the Internet. If that happens, they say, the Internet could evolve into a cable-TV-like system, where providers of high-speed Internet access could steer subscribers toward affiliated Internet sites. The network owners could also limit the types of devices that could be connected to their network, potentially stifling innovation." Printer friendly version of the article is online as well."
that a big black monolith would land on their T1 lines and all there IMs would start spamming, "All these private subnets are yours except the Internet, attempt no meddling there."
The mentioned companies will acquire broadband infrastructure, and two years from now will be lobbying for the opposite goal.
3 cheers for the companies! Go capatalism? Uh... wait, where am I? Corporate pig-dogs! Marxist ideals rule here at /.! Back to your decadent western towers, and your filthy alluring women... plentiful food... mmm...
Microsoft and Disney both see the advantages to un-tethered and relatively "free" (as in open road) access to the Internet for consumers. Cable companies, who are used to being able to "channel" information to passive users, do not, as it raises the bar on what they have to provide.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Many people might ridicule this - how much control can an ISP really have over their users? Sure, they might provide their own content, but users are smart enough to go their own way, right?
;)
I used to work for a large ISP and we found that a majority of our users thought their ISP connection would stop working if they changed their homepage to something other than us. That's how much power we had over our users - scary.
Kinda makes Microsoft look like the good guys - I feel a divide by zero error coming on!
Read reviews of shopping cart software
I believe that in due time, the Internet will grow to the level of public infrastructure, in the same way that we regard electricity and highways.
/Just an useless rant.
Only problem is, what kind of road (pun intended) are we going take to get there?
In the early days of paved roads, it was a mess until Uncle Sam wrote a bill saying that all Americans must have a smooth driving experience. When can we expect the same smooth packet delivery experience?
/.'s 10 Millionth
If the FCC actually does put a crimp on the Internet, they can, of course, only regulate it INSIDE the U.S.
Which would mean, of course, that despite all our big talk about freedom we would be up there with China regarding the good old internet.
In Post-Soviet Russia, they still have real internet. =P
Just My Opinion.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Tux, The Gnu, BSD Devil,
and now Mickey Mouse?
opensource heros
I wish with every story the submitter or the editors would also put up the updated list of The Good Folks(TM) and The Evil Corporations(TM). It would make comment posting a whole lot simpler ;^)
It's quite simple... While these companies may be trying to kill their competiton, by killing off the "open" internet, they certainly are going to fight tooth-and-nail when it looks like someone else might beat them too it.
Think of the way Windows hadn't had any significant changes, until Apple went on full attack. Suddenly, Windows XP got a movie studio, and a new interface.
So, they may want the internet "closed" for their own purposes, but dammed if they'll let someone else do it!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I get the sense that Disney wants to keep the Internet open because AOL Time Warner controls the pipes to a lot of homes, especially on the broadband market with both Road Runner and AOL Broadband. If the Internet evolves into another cable outlet (deities forbid) and the AOL channel steers people to Time Warner properties, what will happen to the Mickey Mouse stuff?
Disney also happens to own ESPN, and competition among sports web sites is huge.
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
The fact that the poster is surprised at the companies supporting this shows that they misunderstand the principles by which these companies operate. They have only one priciple -- to make money. Once you understand that, their behavior is clearly consistant. Their own freedom helps their bottom line, the freedom of others may hurt it.
The problem is that most of the laws are being passed as Super-DMCA at the state level. They have to force the FCC to change the federal law or it will be over before it starts. Ok, Comcast, Verizon, etc.. don't control your internet access over federal laws. However, with Michigan for example, they can say you can't put a Firewall/NAT device on your Internet connection and you can't connect several computers at once. Just as powerful a control.
...when Amazon, Microsoft and Walt Disney have to unite to defend freedom.
...just like electric charge. Microsoft is +10 AlwaysWinning(TM) Evil, while Amazon and Disney are both -5 OppressiveIP Evil. However note that by the Slashdot conventions, Microsoft is always twice as evil as any other company. Thus when Amazon, Disney and MS collaborate, all their evil cancels out and we can root for them.
;-)
Note that any branch of the government, the MPAA/RIAA etc. is -20 OppressiveIP Evil, twice as evil as MS, and so we can never root for them.
Next time RTFM
My other sig is also a
These companies are just taking the high road because they can't take the low road because they don't have the resources monopolies.
Does anyone think for a minute that if MS owned a major cable network that they would care about innovation? The only thing they'd care about is first expanding subscribers and then slowly cranking down the subscriptions to limit them to MS Home Terminal Software users only.
Disney hate the cable companies from a TV perspective because they keep getting sodomozed on access fees to get their channels onto cable systems.
Amazon may actually care about innovation, but only because if everyone gets steered to another shopping site Amazon's "one click" "innovation" won't mean anything.
Move along. There's nothing to see here but a bunch of companies crowing because someone *else* has the ability to steer and lockout, not because they actually give a shit about a free, open and innovative internet.
Haha! Yeah, like IE going to the "IE Update Site" almost half the times I start it.
And the really sad thing is that's still not often enough to keep up with all the security updates required.
"Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
Let's look at the issues, shall we?
Content providers want to make sure that the FCC doesn't do something which allows cable or telephone companies to set up rules which prohibit people from connecting to their content, which makes them revenue.
Hardware manufacturers want to make sure that the FCC doesn't do something which allows cable or telephone companies to set up rules which prohibit people from connecting the hardware they sell to a consumer's home network.
This isn't about the internet -- it's about the ISPs. Yes, the ISPs are connected to the internet, but this is just a peripheral thing. The FCC couldn't stop you if you signed up with a foreign company to get access over satellite, [phone calls would go through them, but this way, to avoid that part of the loop].
As for the bit about companies prohibiting WiFi, it was probably against the TOS or AUP for the ISP.... Most residential accounts don't allow sharing of connections to multiple systems. This just means that the consumer should go with an ISP that doesn't place this restriction on their account. [I use Speakeasy, personally... and before that, I was paying more for a business class line, until CAIS went under, and the company that bought them out tried screwing me over by doubling my rates on me].
As with anything else, you are buying a service from someone -- they might have conditions on that service, and if you violate it, they have the right to refuse you service. [ie, the 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' thing at most fast food establishments... although, why they don't require pants or some other similar covering, I have no idea].
Part of the issue may come from downstream liability issues -- if you put up a mail server, and you don't secure it, and become a third party relay for a spammer, they might get backlisted....if you connect up an unsecured WiFi node, and someone spams through your connection, they might get blacklisted, just the same. Personally, I'm okay with the companies putting restrictions on accounts so that they can remain profitable. It keeps them from having to raise prices for everyone else... And if they can't stay competitive, I'm sure there's other folks that aren't bloated and scamming their users, and provide better service, who can do it.
What I have issue with is the way that the ILECs aren't allowing Covad and other CLECs access to their facilities (it took multiple tries to get a damned pair of copper for when I went from SDSL to ADSL, because the CO was 'at capacity'... I'm just not buying it).
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.